514 
REPLY TO MR. W.C. SPOONER’S PAPER 
mory, and the association of ideas, and, you might also have added, 
with Mr. Youatt, 
“ All are but parts of one stupendous whole 
that “ there are degrees up to man, who is the most perfect of all, 
the same spirit animating all in a greater or less degree;'' you 
then go on to prove, and very ably and philosophically you have 
done so, ‘Hhat animals required the possession of these several 
faculties in order that they should be enabled to put into practice 
the singular and different means of procuring sustenance, preserving 
themselves and their offspring in safety, and fulfilling their des¬ 
tined purposes in the wide range of animated creation.” But here 
you stop: we journey no further together, since you deny that 
those faculties entitle them to immortality, because, forsooth, their 
reasoning faculties will not enable them to solve problems in Euclid, 
—“ to gaze on the Moon and stars, to measure their distances, cal¬ 
culate their periods and their changes, and to contemplate the 
mysteries and sublimities of the creation in all their wonder and 
immensitv.’' 
4 / 
I perfectly coincide with you, that the distinction between the 
reasoning faculties of the biped and quadruped is great; to make 
use of your own beautiful simile, even as that between the 
mountain and the molehill—between the Indian’s fragile canoe 
and the magnificent ship of war; the former merely transporting 
its owner over the unruffled surface of the lake, the latter bearing 
a race of beings in safety amidst the fury of opposing elements.” 
And you then exultingly exclaim, “What greater difference can 
we desire V Why, Sir, even this great difference is, by your own 
shewing, only one of degree. It does not disprove their immor¬ 
tality in the least, their souls being far inferior to the dignity of 
the human soul, and are capable of so great a happiness as man 
can enjoy. 
The principal position which I took in my essay was, that the 
mind of man differed from that of the brute only in degree, and not 
in kind; and I contend that the metaphysical argument which 
proves the immortality of man extends with equal force to the in¬ 
ferior animals. 
Having entered into this part of the subject—the immateriality 
of mind —at great length in my essay, it would be a waste of time 
to go over the ground again, more particularly as you have not 
even attempted to dispute this position by a single argument. 
But, to shew you that there are others who entertain similar opi¬ 
nions to mine, I will adduce a few authorities on the same subject 
that may be considered as worthy of some little attention. 
Dr. .1. C. Prichard says that “sensation is an attribute of mind, 
